Right relies on bogus evidence for stem-cell debate

July 17, 2006

The [tag]Senate[/tag] begins debate today on three bills on [tag]stem-cell[/tag] [tag]research[/tag], all of which are expected to pass tomorrow, despite a veto threat from the Bush White House on the main proposal to undo the president’s 2001 restrictions. As the debate gets underway, be sure to look out for one of the right’s favorite talking points, which had been thoroughly debunked.

For example, Sen. Sam [tag]Brownback[/tag] (R-Kan.), a leading opponent of stem-cell research, argued two weeks ago that researchers have “derived over 70 peer-reviewed and published medical treatments from adult stem cell research.” Similarly, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said last week that embryonic stem-cell research is unnecessary because adult stem-cell research “has produced results for over 70 different medical conditions.”

Brownback, Perkins, and other leading conservatives have used this talking point repeatedly, relying on the work of [tag]David Prentice[/tag], a scientist with Perkins’ Family Research Council. Unfortunately for the right, Prentice’s work doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Late last week, the journal Science published a letter by three researchers documenting significant errors in the FRC researcher’s results.

“Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites,” wrote Shane Smith of the Children’s Neurobiological Solutions Foundation in Santa Barbara, Calif.; William B. Neaves of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo.; and Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis.

For example, they wrote, a study cited by Prentice as evidence that adult stem cells can help patients with testicular cancer is in fact a study that evaluates methods of isolating adult stem cells.

Prentice is frequently seen walking around Congress — he’s a top Brownback advisor on stem-cell policy — carrying a binder filled with his evidence on adult stem cells. Nearly all of them are wrong. As the WaPo noted, there are only nine diseases that have been proved to respond to treatment with adult stem cells, about one-eighth the number Prentice has argued.

Bogus evidence aside, the Senate debate should get pretty interesting.

Under Senate procedure on the bill, the main stem-cell legislation, which already passed the House with bi-partisan support, will need 60 votes to pass. Recent head-counts suggest that proponents will have the votes to advance the bill to the [tag]White House[/tag], where it’s likely to become the first [tag]veto[/tag] of [tag]Bush[/tag]’s presidency.

It’s also worth noting that the Senate will be taking up three bills relating to stem-cell research, not one. In addition to the principal legislation that’s drawing the bulk of the attention, [tag]conservatives[/tag] have created two more proposals.

One of the alternate bills would ban the non-existent practice of “fetal farming” — removing embryos from women’s wombs for medical research. The other, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would mandate that the National Institutes of Health focus its research dollars on cures from adult stem cells.

The “[tag]fetal farming[/tag]” bill is of particular interest because it outlaws the trade of tissue produced by pregnancies that are aborted specifically to harvest the tissue for medical research. Does “fetal farming” exist? No. Is anyone, anywhere, seriously advocating for such a practice? No. But the right, true to form, wants to tackle the “problem” anyway, just in case.

The Senate will likely hold a floor vote tomorrow afternoon. Stay tuned.

“The “fetal farming” bill is of particular interest because it outlaws the trade of tissue produced by pregnancies that are aborted specifically to harvest the tissue for medical research. Does “fetal farming” exist? No. Is anyone, anywhere, seriously advocating for such a practice? No. But the right, true to form, wants to tackle the “problem” anyway, just in case.” – CB

Hey, let them get ahead of an issue for once. The way America works, if they don’t outlaw it, it will be the next growth industry.

I’d just wish they would pass a law saying that cloned humans have full civil rights before we create a slave class in this country on the premise that clones can’t have civil rights because they don’t have souls because they are nothing more than a tissue graft that’s been kept alive through extrodinary means.

  • “conservatives have used this talking point repeatedly”

    Democrats ought to memorize that clause.

    “Does ‘fetal farming’ exist? No. Is anyone, anywhere, seriously advocating for such a practice? No. But the right, true to form, wants to tackle the ‘problem’ anyway, just in case.”

    Democrats ought to become expert at using that technique.

    Have you noticed that Republicans’ ideas appear in mass media (FOX, CNN, Time, Newsweek, National Enquirer) while ours appear in magazines like Science?

    I like Science magazine — I’ve even published in it twice (not easy, believe me) — but it shouldn’t be the forum for Democratic policy statements. As an old friend used to tell me when I waxes academic: “You gotta put the hay down on the ground where the goats can get at it.” Do we no longer have anyone, beyond non-candidate Al Gore, who can do that? Edwards says he’s trying to get “out of the box” of focus groups and so on. Anybody else?

  • The fetal farming issue is just another barricade to legal abortion procedures. Think about it—how might someone “prove” the the aborted fetus is not intended for stem-cell research? The only way to “prove the negative’ is to destroy the fetus on-site—thus denying the entire fetal stem-cell program its foundational asset.

    Another issue will likely be that, if in individual cannot “prove” the aborted fetus won’t be used for research, then the abortion itself might be blocked. In both case, it’s like telling someone that “if you can’t PROVE that you’re not going to burn down someone’s house, then you’re not allowed to BUY matches….”

  • “Does “fetal farming” exist? No. Is anyone, anywhere, seriously advocating for such a practice? No. But the right, true to form, wants to tackle the “problem” anyway, just in case.”

    Then by the same logic, we also need a Frankenstein Bill to prevent mad scientists from creating life from exhumed corpses.

  • Ed, I think the main problem with science policy in this country is that there are no scientists making policy. There is one physicist in Congress (Ehlers, R-MI) and maybe one other scientist. There are a few doctors, but with the likes of Frist in that group I’m not holding out hope of any rational arguments from them. In addition, the media is by-and-large not interested in honest discussion of science topics. Looking at the line up for Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel you see UFOs, psychics, and even a program on the Book of Revelations last night (ack!). The only decent programming on these channels is from the BBC or made with their cooperation (Walking with Dinosaurs, etc.). The one channel that produces good science programming (NOVA, Nature, etc.) is constantly fighting for its funding. Is this any surprise?

  • It is spooky, the whole clone business, I’ll grant.

    Generally, I leave the self-inflicting torture of the wingnut blogs to more masochistically inclined, but occasionally one finds oneself confronted by some absurdity as when I Googled to this joke this morning: Huge Mistake… For Valerie Plame, in which every single sentence is bogus. How many bogus sentences does one have to read before dumping the whole lot? It’s trash. Why break sweat over it?

    Oh, well, yes.. of course, I know, it has to be debated and disproved and shown to be false, etc, etc. How utterly tiresome. Is there no other way?

    There was a nice suggestion by Walter Pincus last week that “.. Journalistic courage should include the refusal to publish in a newspaper or carry on a TV or radio news show any statements […] offering no new or valuable information to the public.” Maybe there should be a quota limitation set on repeating the same talking points in debates.

  • Rather than simply trot out the fact that David Prentice’s research is indeed peer reviewed, perhaps Sen. Brownback should also include the fact that his research is also peer discredited.

    If this debate were to really revolve around the principles of scientific inquiry, then Brownback and his entire chorus of right wing loonies would be laughed out of the chamber. Brownback knows this, and that is why Mr. Prentice’s research is nothing more than a smokescreen.

  • Astrogeek (#5), I agree with the points you make.

    However, I’m not asking that more scientists enter Congress or that National Academy of Sciences write our laws. The process of legislation must answer to diverse interests, some legitimate, some not so. Compromise is everywhere, or at least it should be.

    I’m just saying that our President has no business being anti-science. That Frist should never have involved himself in Schiavo case. That I wish Stevens could say something more astute about the Internet he potentially has great power over (a series of tubes? C’mon, old man, it’s time to hit retirement). That our journalists could do something more grown up than asking Nobel prize winners, “Now, without getting into all that science gobbledygook, tell us in plain English what you did to earn that prize.” That talk show hosts exhibit personal embarrassment or at least humility – rather than ridicule – when confronted by competent empirical or mathematical statements.

  • Then by the same logic, we also need a Frankenstein Bill to prevent mad scientists from creating life from exhumed corpses.
    Let’s not forget the ever-present threat of human-animal hybrids that the president has been so concerned about.

  • So why does Prentice’s work surprise anyone? Don’t all fifth-rate morons who can’t make it in the real world end up playing to their fellow droolers on the right, too stupid to know when they’re being played down to?

    Why should a scientist be any different that Bill O’Reilly, Michele Malkin and David Horowitz, all of whom found fame and money playing to the stupid people in the simpleton audience?

    • Comments are closed.